<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The BBC could save local media</title>
	<atom:link href="http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 23 Jul 2010 15:36:50 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bowbrick</title>
		<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/comment-page-1/#comment-296</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bowbrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 03 Dec 2008 16:51:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commonplatform.co.uk/?p=167#comment-296</guid>
		<description>Amen, Monique. Did you read Vic Keegan&#039;s &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/bbc-digital-video&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;rather angry article&lt;/a&gt; on this topic in last week&#039;s Guardian. Very good stuff. He&#039;s essentially in agreement with the premise that the BBC could have actually boosted local media provision and especially at the laggard outlets who haven&#039;t touched video yet. What a shame.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Amen, Monique. Did you read Vic Keegan&#8217;s <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/nov/27/bbc-digital-video" rel="nofollow">rather angry article</a> on this topic in last week&#8217;s Guardian. Very good stuff. He&#8217;s essentially in agreement with the premise that the BBC could have actually boosted local media provision and especially at the laggard outlets who haven&#8217;t touched video yet. What a shame.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monique Potts</title>
		<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/comment-page-1/#comment-294</link>
		<dc:creator>Monique Potts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:53:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commonplatform.co.uk/?p=167#comment-294</guid>
		<description>I&#039;m sorry to hear this has been knocked back - but not surprised really. It seems to be quite difficult for the BBC to innovate in a number of new media spaces (education, local etc) without being seen as being anti-competitive or compromising commercial media production.

I think this creates a real bind for the BBC in trying to innovate and promote new models of media production.

I agree that providing free feeds would be a 
very good way to feed into and provide resources to local media producers. But it&#039;s also important to acknowledge that most of these local media producers are not in a position to be innovative in this space, where the BBC is. 

I know how much work is involved in producing these sort of proposals and to me it seems like a great loss of public value to just have to bin it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m sorry to hear this has been knocked back &#8211; but not surprised really. It seems to be quite difficult for the BBC to innovate in a number of new media spaces (education, local etc) without being seen as being anti-competitive or compromising commercial media production.</p>
<p>I think this creates a real bind for the BBC in trying to innovate and promote new models of media production.</p>
<p>I agree that providing free feeds would be a<br />
very good way to feed into and provide resources to local media producers. But it&#8217;s also important to acknowledge that most of these local media producers are not in a position to be innovative in this space, where the BBC is. </p>
<p>I know how much work is involved in producing these sort of proposals and to me it seems like a great loss of public value to just have to bin it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steve Bowbrick</title>
		<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/comment-page-1/#comment-291</link>
		<dc:creator>Steve Bowbrick</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 20:17:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commonplatform.co.uk/?p=167#comment-291</guid>
		<description>OK wiseguy. I fixed the post. Thanks for the grammar check :-&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK wiseguy. I fixed the post. Thanks for the grammar check :-></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nick Reynolds (BBC)</title>
		<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/comment-page-1/#comment-290</link>
		<dc:creator>Nick Reynolds (BBC)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 24 Nov 2008 09:43:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commonplatform.co.uk/?p=167#comment-290</guid>
		<description>Shouldn&#039;t your last sentence read &quot;i&#039;d like to think not&quot; i.e. you would hope he wouldn&#039;t get such a frosty reception?

Good post though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Shouldn&#8217;t your last sentence read &#8220;i&#8217;d like to think not&#8221; i.e. you would hope he wouldn&#8217;t get such a frosty reception?</p>
<p>Good post though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Deirdre Molloy</title>
		<link>http://commonplatform.co.uk/index.php/2008/11/21/is-local-video-dead-and-buried/comment-page-1/#comment-287</link>
		<dc:creator>Deirdre Molloy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 22 Nov 2008 16:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://commonplatform.co.uk/?p=167#comment-287</guid>
		<description>Thank you for this post Steve. When you touched on &quot;sharing facilities and content&quot; it reminded me a lot of point 3. from a &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/6q3mrn&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;recent post&lt;/a&gt; by Umair Haque on his Harvard Business blog where he counterpoints the old business rule of &#039;maximising destructiveness&#039; with a new approach of getting constructive.

Of course I&#039;m not comparing the BBC to the Detroit auto industry that Haque is focusing on - they&#039;re entirely different entities, and the BBC is in a much better position methinks.

Maybe the larger point it that rather than any co-operation being driven by sheer necessity in the face of local media&#039;s struggles and the deepening of the recession (moves to share resources among the metropolitan media are already afoot), co-operation between the BBC and local players driven by more purposeful logic would seem to be more dynamic, sustainable and beneficial to all involved... but that would be a big change for all parties concerned.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this post Steve. When you touched on &#8220;sharing facilities and content&#8221; it reminded me a lot of point 3. from a <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6q3mrn" rel="nofollow">recent post</a> by Umair Haque on his Harvard Business blog where he counterpoints the old business rule of &#8216;maximising destructiveness&#8217; with a new approach of getting constructive.</p>
<p>Of course I&#8217;m not comparing the BBC to the Detroit auto industry that Haque is focusing on &#8211; they&#8217;re entirely different entities, and the BBC is in a much better position methinks.</p>
<p>Maybe the larger point it that rather than any co-operation being driven by sheer necessity in the face of local media&#8217;s struggles and the deepening of the recession (moves to share resources among the metropolitan media are already afoot), co-operation between the BBC and local players driven by more purposeful logic would seem to be more dynamic, sustainable and beneficial to all involved&#8230; but that would be a big change for all parties concerned.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
